The New Unity Partnership

In a way, internal democracy is part of the path to union density. Perhaps more importantly, a narrow focus on either democracy or density is dangerous for the labor movement, as it limits the movement’s ability to address the complex challenges, internal and external, it currently faces. 

While increased union density is essential for a revitalized labor movement, so is a more militant union leadership. For the last decade, strikes and other union-led actions aimed at taking power in the workplace have been in decline (according to numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). Among those strikes, major victories have been few and far between. 

Even in the case of a protracted strike, union leaders are careful to let the press and the public know that they want not just what’s good for their workers, but what’s good for business as well. “We don’t want to hurt the company,” is a standard line from union leaders, even as companies go out of their way to hurt the workers. 

Even with increased density, if union leaders are not willing to go after exploitative employers aggressively, adopting the tactics and rhetoric of direct confrontation, it seems unlikely that the labor movement will reverse its fortunes. In a democratic union, where decisions are made by workers who have first-hand experience of being screwed by their boss, union leadership is more likely to be militant. 

Troubling Maneuvers 

U nfortunately, the unions behind the NUP seem solely focused on union density and this has led them to make some troubling political maneuvers. Two examples: last summer, Stern, O’Sullivan, and Wilhelm sent a letter to union officials urging them to “follow their example by giving $1,000 or more to the re-election campaign of Dennis Hastert”; last autumn, leaked documents from NUP planning sessions cited the NUP’s intention to “meet with Karl Rove,” presumably to discuss how the NUP might be able to work with Rove and the Bush administration. 

These unions’ willingness to work with or support virulently anti-union Republicans is indicative of what might accurately be characterized as their “density at all costs” attitude. It often appears that if a politician or employer is willing to give the NUP unions what they want in terms of organizing, the unions will support that politician or employer, no matter what effect that support has on their members or the labor movement as a whole. 

On the local level, this attitude has manifested itself most obviously in SEIU/1199 President Dennis Rivera’s endorsement of New York Governor George Pataki and in HERE Local 26 President Janice Loux’s willingness to cross the picket lines of other city unions to show her support for Boston Mayor Thomas Menino. If these unions were truly democratic, so that leaders like Loux and Rivera were accountable to their members, such actions would not be possible—which is perhaps why these unions’ leaders often respond negatively to calls for increased democracy. 

The “density at all costs” attitude is also reflected in how NUP unions often approach contract negotiations. Even with some of the most abusive employers, these unions have shown a willingness to negotiate deals with employers that include major concessions on workplace conditions or pay and benefits, if the employer will grant the union increased organizing rights. Since these unions are not internally democratic, their members have little to no say about these concessions. 

SEIU’s 1997 negotiations with the Kaiser Permanente healthcare company serve as an excellent example. At Kaiser, in exchange for organizing rights (and wage and benefit gains), SEIU agreed to go along with management’s push to replace registered nurses with lesser-licensed or unlicensed hospital staff, and a variety of other cost-cutting measures. So, in order to secure organizing access, SEIU was willing to participate in the de-skilling of the nursing profession, which in the long-term will have a disastrous effect on all nurses, including those represented by SEIU. 

These unions’ willingness to “go it alone” (as evidenced by their secretive NUP planning, as well as their political activities) is ultimately very dangerous for the labor movement. Keep in mind, Carpenters President McCarron yanked the Carpenters from the AFL-CIO rather than be subject to rules that forbid raiding of other construction unions. There’s no way to gauge what type of influence McCarron is having on Stern, Wilhelm, Raynor, and O’Sullivan, but it’s safe to say that McCarron’s involvement in the NUP (given his support for Bush, contempt for union democracy, and lack of interest in cross-union solidarity) is troubling. 

Moreover, as long-time labor journalist Harry Kelber pointed out in an article for T h e Labor Educator , four of the five union leaders behind the NUP have been involved in high-level strategizing within the AFL-CIO for years, as members of its executive council, so they are at least partly responsible for its stagnancy. “If these unions haven’t been able to organize millions of workers until now,” asked Kelber, “why should we believe they’ll succeed under their New Partnership?” 

While it is commendable that these union presidents are willing to rethink past practices, they need to acknowledge that five men sitting around a table will not be capable of revitalizing the labor movement. If they plan on moving forward with their model without first opening up the debate, the future of U.S. labor could be filled with infighting and fragmentation. Bush and his buddies could not dream of a better fortune.   

William Johnson is the assistant editor of Labor Notes magazine. He lives and works in Detroit.